The book reconstructs the trial instituted by Pope Pius IV (r. 1559–65) against the three nephews of his predecessor Paul IV Carafa (r. 1555–59), Cardinals Carlo and Alfonso Carafa, and Giovanni, Count of Paliano. The three men were formally accused of crimes and misdeeds committed during their uncle’s reign. In March 1561 Carlo and Giovanni were convicted and sentenced to death, while a heavy financial penalty was levied on Alfonso. The author correctly moves beyond the external aspects of these formal accusations against the Carafa and presents the trial as “less an illustration of justice against a single nefarious family than a vehicle by which Pius sought to enhance his own authority as pope” (4). In fact, Pattenden interprets the legal proceedings as part of a clear papal strategy to intimidate the College of Cardinals and strengthen absolute papal monarchy. It is a plausible hypothesis that requires further elucidation. The author states that the trial “precipitated a rare and vigorous debate about how papal authority might be used, the ends to which it should be directed, and the role of the pope’s family in assisting in its exercise” (1). Pattenden delineates in admirable detail each phase of the trial, highlighting the strategies adopted by the single actors in the drama. The reader, however, has the right to expect more conclusive evidence concerning the strict link between the trial and the debate over papal authority it allegedly engendered.

To reinforce his interpretation the author argues against the almost century-old views of the Carafa trial offered by Leopold von Ranke, René Ancel, and Ludwig von Pastor. These venerable historians had presented the events transpiring in 1560–61 as a crucial manifestation of Pius’s reforming effort against papal nepotism. Pattenden easily shows that nothing had changed under Pius IV in terms of this abuse. However, this is a historiographical interpretation that is very much dated. He would have done better to discuss and build on the more recent contribution on the topic by Alberto Aubert (Paolo IV. Politica, inquisizione, storiografia [1999]), which devotes great attention to the political implications of the Carafa trial. Pattenden reduces Aubert’s book to a two-line discussion (39), without even mentioning the author’s name in the text. Unfortunately, this is not the only instance where Pattenden fails to confront the most pertinent work on the topic. Although he has done original research and has brought to light new documentation from Spanish archives in Simancas and the Roman archive of the Tribunale del governatore, the overall impression is that much previous work and many earlier findings are not specifically acknowledged. This is the case not only with the archival material utilized by Aubert, but it is also true in the case of the entry on Pius IV by Fluvio Rurale in the Enciclopedia dei Papi (omitted by Pattenden in the bibliography to his book as well as never quoted in the notes of the volume). The same can be said about the letters unearthed many years ago by José Ignacio Tellechea Idígoras — see, for example, the letter from Francisco Vargas to Philip II quoted on 49n41, already published by Tellechea in his “Felipe II y los Carafa: Noticias y sucesos de una dificil relacion” (Scriptorium Victoriense 55 [2008]: 5–100, esp. 80–83); or letters from Pietro Carnesecchi to Giulio [sic] Gonzaga (21n37 and 25n55), preserved in the Roman Archive of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, published by Massimo Firpo and Dario Marcatto in their recent edition of the Carnesecchi trial (I processi inquisitoriali di Pietro Carnesecchi [1557–1561] [1998–2000], 2.1.267–69). In conclusion, this is a promising work that would have profited from a careful peer-review process, tighter editing, greater attention to detail (I have noted a number of factual and typographical lapses), and faithful acknowledgment of the preceding scholarship by clearly stating that many of the documentary finds here utilized we owe to the pioneering efforts of earlier investigators in the field.